we can all agree that this is an unfortunate setback in terms of public perception of nuclear energy
I - for one - disagree quite strongly with that.
I think that it's very unfortunate that somehow Nuclear power has picked up a lot of support from people who think opposition to it is unscientific.
I think that if you look even moderately closely at it you'll find that the risk modelling associated with nuclear power closely resembles the risk modelling that Feynman tore to shreds when done on the space shuttle after the Challenger disaster.
For example, people will tell you that this disaster was so bad because of the combination of earthquake and tsunami knocked out the support infrastructure. They'll even give you odds on each individual problem occurring.
But they don't look at the system as a whole: If an earthquake and tsunami did occur, it was almost certain that support infrastructure would be knocked out. In actual fact they were very, very lucky that no aftershock produced another significant tsunami in the area.
The stupidity of those assumptions is obvious in retrospect, but nuclear fans are papering over it by saying it is a one-off problem, and associating anti-nuclear people with smelly, uneducated hippies from the 1970s.
Well.. it's NOT a one off problem, and the risks aren't as low as they make out. Take seismic risks in the US. Quoting the report of Safety/Risk Assessment Panel for Generic Issue 19 (ie "IMPLICATIONS OF UPDATED PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ESTIMATES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES ON EXISTING PLANTS"):
Updates to seismic data and models indicate that estimates of the seismic hazard, at some operating nuclear power plant sites in the Central and Eastern United States, have increased
Using available seismic hazard and plant seismic fragility information, the Safety/Risk Assessment found that the increase in coredamage frequency for about one-fourth of the currently operating plants is large enough to warrant continued evaluation under the Generic Issues Program
So.. those risk assessments done when the plants were approved? They were wrong, and in 1/4 of plants in the Central and Eastern US core damage would occur during a seismic event within their design tolerances.
Still calling this an unfortunate setback?
I hate seeing coal ads that more or less state that it's safer than nuclear energy
I hate seeing coal ads, but nuclear isn't the answer. (Oh, and don't believe the whole "no renewables can produce baseload" lie, either. Do some reading on solar-powered pump-hydro, geothermal and tidal power)
Yeah, its true that if you are involved in the coal industry you are much more likely to die than if you are involved in the nuclear industry.
Yes, day-to-day pollution from a coal plant (especially old ones) is much worse than day-to-day operation of a nuclear plant (which is why they need to be replaced).
But there is zero chance that an accident in a coal plant will affect more than (say) 1000 people, and yet there is at least a 1/12,000 chance [1] that it will affect 100,000+ with a nuclear station.
But there is zero chance that an accident in a coal plant will affect more than (say) 1000 people, and yet there is at least a 1/12,000 chance [1] that it will affect 100,000+ with a nuclear station.
Heh, the flip side is that there is a 100% chance that the pollution created by the coal plant over its lifetime will kill thousands of people. But to your point, that is an argument based on facts, not emotion. And emotionally the people living near the coal plant, while dying due to the effects of its pollution will not have been frightened that one day it might have an accident that would cause them to evacuate for a few months.
I actually replied to a similar object further down.
Obviously I agree that coal is a disaster. At the same time I don't think that replacing coal with nuclear power is acceptable.
However, since this thread is pretty much dead (except for us two!) I'll say this:
I'm not as anti-nuclear power as I might appear here. For example, I'll happily say that the panic associated with a nuclear leak is usually unjustified. I'll even go so far as to say that nuclear power might have a place in the future of power generation.
What I don't like is the uninformed cheerleading by many technophiles of nuclear power.
There are real risks associated with nuclear power, and they are grossly understated by those in the industry, which then gets parroted mindlessly by many. There are plenty of examples on this thread of blind acceptance of "facts" put forward by the nuclear industry (disclaimer - I'm not accusing you of this). A trivial amount of research is enough to raise pretty significant questions on them.
The trend towards blind acceptance of those claims, and the whole "nuclear is cool" thing is what I try & push back strongly against.
But it comes with a risk you cannot insure against. See e.g. Ulrich Beck's discussion of this technology from the 1980s/1990s. On the other hand, you can more easily deal (calculate) with the downsides of coal (uhm ... well, use no coal), hydropower etc.
I - for one - disagree quite strongly with that.
I think that it's very unfortunate that somehow Nuclear power has picked up a lot of support from people who think opposition to it is unscientific.
I think that if you look even moderately closely at it you'll find that the risk modelling associated with nuclear power closely resembles the risk modelling that Feynman tore to shreds when done on the space shuttle after the Challenger disaster.
For example, people will tell you that this disaster was so bad because of the combination of earthquake and tsunami knocked out the support infrastructure. They'll even give you odds on each individual problem occurring.
But they don't look at the system as a whole: If an earthquake and tsunami did occur, it was almost certain that support infrastructure would be knocked out. In actual fact they were very, very lucky that no aftershock produced another significant tsunami in the area.
The stupidity of those assumptions is obvious in retrospect, but nuclear fans are papering over it by saying it is a one-off problem, and associating anti-nuclear people with smelly, uneducated hippies from the 1970s.
Well.. it's NOT a one off problem, and the risks aren't as low as they make out. Take seismic risks in the US. Quoting the report of Safety/Risk Assessment Panel for Generic Issue 19 (ie "IMPLICATIONS OF UPDATED PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ESTIMATES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES ON EXISTING PLANTS"):
Updates to seismic data and models indicate that estimates of the seismic hazard, at some operating nuclear power plant sites in the Central and Eastern United States, have increased
Using available seismic hazard and plant seismic fragility information, the Safety/Risk Assessment found that the increase in coredamage frequency for about one-fourth of the currently operating plants is large enough to warrant continued evaluation under the Generic Issues Program
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%...
So.. those risk assessments done when the plants were approved? They were wrong, and in 1/4 of plants in the Central and Eastern US core damage would occur during a seismic event within their design tolerances.
Still calling this an unfortunate setback?
I hate seeing coal ads that more or less state that it's safer than nuclear energy
I hate seeing coal ads, but nuclear isn't the answer. (Oh, and don't believe the whole "no renewables can produce baseload" lie, either. Do some reading on solar-powered pump-hydro, geothermal and tidal power)